Adrian Bailey: I will, but briefly, because my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) is going to make his maiden speech.

Eric Ollerenshaw: It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). Clearly, my two Saturdays in Corby did not turn out too well. I remember the rain in Thrapston. I offer him many congratulations. Obviously he is a man of strong views, and he puts them across clearly. I have known him before—briefly—in his professional life. He proves that he does his homework and research, and will make a great addition to the House. Unfortunately for Government Members, it looks like he will stay the course.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White)
	and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), on getting this debate under way. I declare an interest in Stalybridge and Hyde—I spent my childhood at Hyde county grammar, and used to live in Dukinfield, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. My sister still lives there and works at the company the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.
	We need to rebalance the economy in terms of the types of the businesses we have, but getting manufacturing and industrial policy right is critical in rebalancing the economy regionally. I am pleased the hon. Gentleman said we do not want to go back to the failed policies of the 1970s in trying to pick company winners—he agrees with Government Members on that. Surely the Government’s job will be to identify sectors where we already have a world lead, such as life sciences, higher manufacturing and aerospace, as well as sectors of high growth, such as the automotive industry.
	As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) pointed out, we need a strategy that resolves the country’s energy needs, which will give stability for investors on which to build an increased manufacturing base. We also need a positive climate for inward investment and business start-up.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) mentioned a competitive tax regime. I congratulate the Government on what they have done on corporation tax, which I believe is having an impact. We need a competitive tax regime, but we also need a regime under which tax is collected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington emphasised education policy and the reforms the Government are introducing to ensure that we have properly trained and qualified workers, which hon. Members on both sides say we need. When we meet local employers, they complain about their employees.
	I agree with other hon. Members on apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on what they have done—we have nearly half a million new apprenticeships. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a small manufacturing factory in my constituency—it is essentially small scale, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). A and G Precision and Sons Ltd has only 40 employees, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) will be pleased to know, it supplies parts to BAE Systems for the Typhoon fighter. Only this year, it decided two work experience lads from the local school into full-time paid apprenticeships. I see the beginning of that welcome change throughout my constituency. The other part of that—my hon. Friend has just touched on it and it is one of my main points—is the encouragement of R and D, so that our companies remain at the cutting edge in their field.
	My constituency benefits from having Lancaster university in it—one of the top 10 universities. The university has recently been made a centre of excellence for cyber-security, and has the potential to generate multi-billion pound business across the world. We need to build on that. In my constituency, ideas have been developed and transferred. For example, First Subsea Ltd took a design from the university and has now produced an engineering mechanism to pick up pipes and buoys from under the sea for the oil industry. It employs 45 people and has sales departments in all the major oil-producing parts of the world.
	I have previously made this point, but we have missed a trick with local enterprise zones. I have never understood why we could not give every university the potential to have their own enterprise zone. The purpose of enterprise zones is to encourage start-ups. Where do start-ups start? Many of them at the high end start with universities. We also want enterprise zones where businesses, as they expand, eventually move off and pay their taxes like every other business.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I first congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his absolutely splendid maiden speech? I have some connection with him in a sense, because I come from the east midlands, my grandfather worked in the boot and shoe industry, and at this moment I am wearing a pair of English leather shoes that were probably made in his constituency—and splendid shoes they are, too. It really was an excellent speech, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s father is here to hear it, because he was a very good personal friend and comrade in this place. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is following in his father’s footsteps and I welcome him to the House of Commons.
	I want to mention Bedford trucks as well, because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned them. They were made just outside my constituency in Dunstable and are all over Pakistan—thousands of them can be seen there today. Many people think it was a great mistake to stop manufacturing the basic truck, which is so rugged and can work in any conditions—and no doubt is infinitely superior to the Chinese competition.
	I want to talk about Britain’s experience of manufacturing. Britain has suffered from savage deindustrialisation, brought about by utterly misguided economic policies enacted over a long period. We have had many figures quoted to us today. We only have to look at, say, the comparable 2006 figures from Germany and Britain, to see that manufacturing comprised 12.4% of our economy in Britain and 23.2% of Germany’s economy—almost twice as much. Germany is indeed the economic powerhouse of Europe, and one can see why. During the period 2000 to 2010, the UK share of world trade fell by 28%, whereas Germany’s fell by a mere 3%. Why are our countries so different? Governments in Britain have made persistent attempts to sustain an overvalued exchange rate. This goes right back to even the 1931 crisis, which sadly destroyed the Labour Government, because they did not realise that they could come off the gold standard and devalue, which is what they should have done and what happened immediately after they lost office.
	Then we had the 1949 devaluation—very sensible—and in 1967, again after resisting devaluation for a long time, we eventually devalued, following which the economy of course bounced a bit. But then in 1979 we had the Thatcher Government, who immediately introduced policies that saw a massive appreciation of the pound. In two years we saw a fifth of manufacturing industry disappear and unemployment rise to 3 million, simply because of the massive appreciation of the pound and the collapse in demand for manufacturing. Between ’82 and ’88, in the Nigel Lawson period, we saw a pretty savage depreciation of the pound—by some 35% from peak to trough—and a great recovery because of that depreciation.

Kelvin Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can recover by taking supply side measures, he is gravely mistaken. It is the macro-economic measures that the Germans took that were the basis for their success. Supply side measures can no doubt help, but having a low parity for the currency and then ensuring that investment goes into manufacturing above all was the key to German success. The euro, of course, is an invention, essentially to pinion the Deutschmark within the euro at a relatively low parity compared with the countries that Germany exports to. If those countries outside Germany but inside the eurozone were permitted to recreate their own currencies and devalue, they would not be able to buy quite so many BMWs and Mercedes as they do at the moment, and that would affect Germany. One of the reasons Germany is so keen to keep the eurozone going is simply that Germans know very well that if the eurozone was disaggregated, or collapsed, depending on how one chooses to describe it, the Deutschmark would immediately appreciate and Germany would have much more serious difficulties.
	We have had that constant problem with our exchange rate. Ours has always been high, and Governments have tried to keep it high. Germany’s has always been low and German Governments have made sure it stayed low. I have had a number of experiences, about which I have written in the past, and spoken on many occasions. In 1988 I went to a meeting of the Anglo-German Foundation and raised the question of the “balance of trade problem” with Germany. I was immediately told to shut up by a very angry representative of the then German Government. I thought I was just raising something that was obvious to everyone, but he was very upset that I even raised the issue. In 1988 the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a pamphlet, “The German Surplus,” which raised that issue. That too was suppressed. I tried to get extra copies; I was told there was none. I asked who wrote it; no one would tell me. Clearly, the Europhiles inside the organisation were suppressing that document because it would damage our relationships with the European Union, which we were moving towards.
	Macro-economics is the core problem. We could do lots of other things as well, but the macro-economics must be right. We must ensure that our exchange rate is right, and the only way we are going to start to recover industrially—in manufacturing terms—is first to have a substantial depreciation and then do other things to ensure we recover. If we do not do that, we are in for a very bleak time.
	I have with me the fine document produced by the Library every month, “The Economic Indicators,” which I read avidly. Let us look at the trade balances—visible trade. In 2010, Germany had a trade surplus—converted by the Library into dollars, for comparison’s sake—of $204 billion, when the UK’s was $151 billion. That is the difference between countries. It should be, in many other ways, very similar. They have got it right; we have got it wrong. The UK trade deficit with the EU27—essentially with Germany—in August, the last month recorded, was £4.9 billion in one month, up from £4.4 billion in July. So it is getting worse. Most of that is, of course, with the Germans. The UK trade deficit for 2011 tipped over the £100 billion mark—a staggering figure. No other country would be able to sustain that, and we must do something about it in time.
	Only a much lower exchange rate will make it possible to increase exports and drive an economic, and specifically industrial, revival in the UK. Only then will we see unemployment come down and living standards start to rise again. We must do this; it is a necessary, vital condition for success, and if we do not do it, we have a bleak future before us.

Jeremy Lefroy: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing this important debate.
	I firmly believe that the United Kingdom needs a long-term industrial policy, but it must be rooted in growth. There is no point in focusing on economic sectors that will not create jobs and wealth for the UK
	in the future. We have fought shy of introducing an industrial policy in the UK for many years, because we believe that Governments should not be in the business of picking winners. It is true that a Government should not select one company over another, but we will be failing our country and future generations if we do not look ahead to see which economic sectors are likely to prosper and which are likely to fade away.
	Suspicious as we have been about industrial policies, we have nevertheless had them over the years. In the midlands, in and around my constituency, I can see the positive results of at least three of them. Rolls-Royce aero-engine manufacturing was saved—perhaps fortuitously, and not as a result of a deliberate policy—by a Conservative Government intervention in 1971 after the company overreached itself with the development of the RB211 engine. Rolls-Royce employs tens of thousands of highly-skilled staff, contributes greatly to UK manufacturing exports—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on the need for rebalancing—and is one of the best-known British products on earth.
	Alstom, the largest private sector employer in my constituency, was assisted by a French Government intervention in 2003. Since then, it has consolidated its world-leading role in developing high-voltage direct current transmission as well as being the only remaining manufacturer of large transformers in the UK. It, too, makes a significant contribution to the UK balance of payments.
	Jaguar Land Rover is investing heavily in south Staffordshire, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) and other neighbouring MPs have worked hard to secure that investment, alongside the strong support of both Staffordshire county council and Wolverhampton city council. In recent years, the UK Government have made a determined effort to attract automotive investment, and this is one of the many fruits of their and the local councils’ efforts.
	So industrial policy can work, but only that last one could be said to be the result of a determined effort by the UK to establish a proper policy that is consistent, long term and based on a competitive advantage. That is happening in the automotive industry. Another industry that needs a long-term policy is energy, in regard not only to the consumers of energy but to the manufacturers of the equipment used in the industry. Such manufacturers in my own constituency and many others across the country are world leaders.
	What are the building blocks of a successful industrial policy that will stand our country in good stead for the 21st century? I shall make a few suggestions. First, we need a clear understanding of what we will concentrate on. The Netherlands, as so often, provides a good example, as has been set out in Lord Heseltine’s excellent report. The report sets out the nine top sectors in which it believes the Netherlands has a competitive advantage and on which it wishes to concentrate. They include agro-food, horticulture and water—all of which the Netherlands has a lot of—as well as manufacturing and service industries such as chemicals and logistics. The report identifies a “golden triangle” involving links between businesses, research institutions such as universities, and the Government.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that we not only make the end products but control as much of the supply chain as possible. That is particularly the case in the aerospace and automotive industries, which are making efforts in that regard. The supply chain has been relatively hollow in those industries until recently. It has become clear that the UK’s manufacturing base has become increasingly reliant on imported components.
	Thirdly, we have to ensure that our education and training system is more closely integrated with the needs of the sectors on which we are concentrating. It has been said in this Chamber more times than I can remember that we face a critical shortage of engineers. That is why, this week in Stafford, we are looking into forming a local engineering partnership between universities, colleges, schools and industry. Science and research are an easy target for cuts in both public and private sector budgets because the results are further down the road, whereas the benefits of the cost reduction are felt straight away. But that investment must be maintained. I welcome the Government’s action in protecting the science budget in cash terms in the last spending review, and I urge them to do the same and more in the next one.

Michael Meacher: I, like others in the Chamber, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent, confident speech. I am sure that we will see a great deal more of him in the Chamber.
	Today’s debate is about one of the most important and neglected areas in British politics: the abandonment of industrial policy under the embrace of neo-liberal capitalism has, in my view, been one of the most catastrophic errors of the past three decades. It has been a fundamental mistake to believe that the massive switch away from manufacturing to services, particularly financial services in the City of London, is a sustainable model for the British economy. The last time Britain had a current account surplus was in 1983, 29 years ago. In the last 55 years, Britain has had a surplus on its traded goods in only six years. By 2010, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) noted, the deficit in traded goods had reached a staggering level of £100 billion a year. The surplus on services, at £49 billion, could cover only half of that. This year, the deficit is likely to reach £110 billion or £115 billion, or 7% of our GDP.
	A yawning and still increasing deficit of such magnitude cannot continue for long without our foreign creditors, like any bank manager, calling time. The only way to reverse this steady slide towards collapse is by addressing the real causes of decline via a major and sustained revitalisation of our manufacturing capacity. The need for that is unimpeachable. In 1950, our share of world trade was 25%. Today, it is 2.3%. That marks a catastrophic decline in our position as a world leader in manufacturing compared with just 60 years ago, which largely reflects three factors: our gross neglect of industry when other nations were fast recapitalising their manufacturing base; the disastrous assumption under deregulated capitalism that leaving it all to the market would best safeguard Britain’s interest; and the maintenance over most of the period of an over-high exchange rate, putting the City of London’s interest above that of the nation’s industrial base.
	Clearly, it will be difficult to reverse that slide into economic weakness, but we have no alternative but to focus all our efforts on doing so. The first requirement is to stave off any further economic collapse by switching away from a self-defeating deficit-cutting strategy to a public sector-driven jobs and growth strategy. That
	should be funded by diverting a tranche of any future quantitative easing to direct investment in industrial development, by taxing the ultra-rich—that is, the thousand richest people in the UK who, according to
	The Sunday Times 
	rich list, have increased their wealth in the past three years by no less than £155 billion—or, and this will no doubt be preferable to Government Members, by taking advantage of the lowest bank base rate for 300 years by borrowing the relatively small sum of £150 million to secure an investable fund of £30 billion, which could certainly kick-start the economy.
	The real medium-term challenge, of course, is the realignment of the economy away from finance and in favour of manufacturing. It has been talked about regularly but very little has happened. First, as everyone knows, and as other Members have mentioned, there is a continuing shortage of skills, aggravated by a slippage of standards in science and technology education in schools and universities. Secondly, access to finance is a major problem. There is clearly a gap in the market for specialised banks focusing on small businesses, manufacturing services and green investment which needs to be met.
	Thirdly, I believe that we have a national interest in preserving industries and companies that are integral to Britain’s economic survival. The disastrous consequences of leaving Britain’s key industries and strategic companies uninhibitedly exposed to foreign acquisition or private equity buy-outs and asset stripping, which no other advanced industrialised country would allow, are clearly a lesson that I hope has been learned. There are many other things that need to be done, and we need to do them.

Neil Carmichael: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), not least because he is absolutely right about the importance of manufacturing in Gloucestershire. One in every
	five jobs in my constituency is in manufacturing and engineering, so, unsurprisingly, I am constantly promoting manufacturing in Stroud.
	I also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), too. I was struck to learn of his connection with Ruskin college, because Jim Callaghan used that institution as a launch pad for a great debate on education when he was Prime Minister, and rightly so, as we were concerned about the performance of our schools and colleges then, as we are still.
	As Lord Heseltine notes in his report, we have a productivity gap. It takes us 10 hours to do the same thing it would take an American about eight hours to do. We must address that gap, and the Government are therefore right to focus on radical reforms of education, on STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and on making sure our colleges are up to speed in responding to the needs of business.
	As the Prime Minister has said, all Governments—including all Government Departments—need to think about economic growth. To reiterate Lord Heseltine’s point, we need a grand strategy to concentrate the mind on the needs of our industry and our businesses, in order to make sure we get that growth.
	Infrastructure is crucial, and it has rightly frequently been mentioned in our debate. We are going to take three years to decide whether we want a new airport, whereas the Germans are building one in Berlin now. It may well be taking a little longer than usual, and it may well be costing them a little more money than they expected, but the point is that they are building one. We need to sweep away some of our planning restrictions and some of our reticence to make such big and bold decisions, because we need to make those decisions.
	Let me give an example of why that is important. I recently went to Leipzig in eastern Germany. I had visited the city as a student almost 30 years ago, when it was an economic wasteland. It was a disaster zone; I could see that whichever way I looked. Now in Leipzig there is a huge factory making Porsche cars. They are great cars—they are so good that I cannot afford to buy one. The factory’s supply chain is very effective and tight, and it is supported by an infrastructure that enables that supply chain to work. I asked the managing director if he could produce a map of the factory’s supply chain for me, and he did so right away. It served to demonstrate the value of a good supply chain and the importance in that regard of good infrastructure. We must learn these lessons, and we must be bold enough to take the appropriate action.
	It seems to me that Lord Heseltine was right about localism, to the extent that we need to make sure that local structures have the necessary capacity. I am very impressed with our local enterprise partnerships. They are the right approach and are certainly a lot better than regional development agencies, but we have to make sure that all of them are up to standard and know what they need to do. Before we give them a huge bucketful of money, they must demonstrate to us that they are capable of identifying the right firms and making sure that they understand the needs of those firms. That is about knowing the skills requirements, knowing the skills capacities available and matching the difference. I hope LEPs will start to do that.
	I finish with an important appeal. We should not forget the value of our technology. Recognising the added value in our product is important. We must think forward, not backwards. We should not be manufacturing what we manufactured before. We should manufacture products that are needed now and will be needed in the future. That is where the technology matters.

Iain Wright: This has been an important, passionate and, dare I say it, industrious debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the topic, which is very much in the long-term economic interests of our country and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for the manner in which they advanced their arguments. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).
	I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speech that we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), as one by-election victor to another. I have known him for a very long time and he has always been passionate about manufacturing, industry and his local area. He was extremely gracious to his predecessor, as the whole House will have recognised. He mentioned his passion for co-operatives and co-operation. That is a necessary value in an industrial strategy. Industrial policy is often simplified or dismissed as picking winners, but it is fair to say that in my hon. Friend the people of Corby have definitely picked a winner.
	I will be as quick as I can, because there is an awful lot to get through after such an important debate. It is clear from this afternoon that there is a welcome consensus about the need for an industrial strategy with manufacturing at its heart. We in the north-east know all about the importance of manufacturing. Both advanced and emerging nations are repositioning or developing their industrial and manufacturing capabilities—we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about Leipzig—with the aim of enhancing comparative advantage for their key sectors and maximising opportunities for growth.
	We should not blindly follow our competitors into the latest economic fashion. We cannot replicate off the shelf the German model, still less the Singapore model, but it is clear that in the 21st century global economy, business and Governments are working together to ensure that potential is realised. We can exploit our values, our tradition and heritage and our current sectoral strengths to create a bespoke one nation industrial strategy, helping all regions achieve their potential.
	As the CBI stated only this month:
	“Rebalancing the UK economy must consist of boosting our productive potential, which means reviving business investment and trade as key drivers of growth. The debate is no longer over whether the UK needs an industrial strategy, but about what form this should take.”
	We would all agree with that. The message from today’s debate is clear: we need to see clear leadership on an industrial strategy. I therefore fully applaud what Lord Heseltine said in his review when he stated:
	“The Government must have a clear blueprint for the future to support wealth creation. This approach should then be applied without exception across the whole of government.”
	I support the TUC when it said:
	“If we are to move forward, government, industry and unions must agree between them what a renaissance for manufacturing actually means. . . a strong manufacturing sector, across a variety of high skill, high value industries, is both achievable and desirable”.
	The CBI said this month that we should
	“adopt a shared vision . . . for the UK economy, with the government reporting back regularly on how this vision is being delivered”.
	We would all agree.
	We hear warm words from this Government. They often talk a good game, but their actions fail to match their rhetoric, and this country’s industrial potential suffers as a result. So I welcome the Secretary of State’s 16 speeches on the need for an industrial strategy; I just wish he would implement one. I fully support what the Prime Minister said in 2010 in his CBI conference speech—that the Government should be
	“getting behind those industries where Britain already enjoys competitive advantage. All over the world governments are identifying dynamic sectors in their economy and working strategically to strengthen them”.
	He said something similar only this week at the 2012 CBI conference:
	“Government gets it…To have a proper industrial strategy to get behind the growth engines of the future.”
	I fully agree. Yet in response to the speech the director general was forced to ask, “Where’s the beef?”
	I welcome the honest appraisal by the Secretary of State in his leaked letter of February 2012 in which he said that the Government do not have
	“a compelling vision of where the country is heading…and a clear and confident message about how we will earn our living in the future”.
	However, I remain anxious that only last month Lord Heseltine felt the need to say in his report:
	“The message I keep hearing is that the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation.”
	Earlier this month, the CBI stated the position even more bluntly than that.

Matthew Hancock: That is a profound point about the need to avoid groupthink, with which I profoundly agree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) argued that we need to identify the best. He was passionate about enterprise and I heard his message. He will know that I am a huge supporter of enterprise zones.
	I enjoyed listening to the historical debate between the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are continuing their debate as I speak.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) asked a series of questions and brought his huge experience to bear, especially in relation to defence. The defence growth partnership is a BIS-led cross-Government partnership, which the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), leads. On the specific point about R and D tax credits moving to above the line, the Treasury has consulted on that and is deciding on the detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me with the answer on the joint strike fighter, which I will come to in a moment.
	Everybody in the House was struck by the fluent and impressive speech by the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). He described passionately his membership of the Co-operative party as well as the Labour party. My grandfather was part of the co-operative movement. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who takes a lead on such issues among Government Members.
	The hon. Member for Corby advanced the argument for the living wage powerfully. He spoke of the need to ensure that domestic British people have the skills to take the jobs that are available. Although more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created under this Government, we still have a huge amount of work to do. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my prime motivation is to ensure that British people have the skills and ability to do whatever it takes to get the growing number of jobs available. The hon. Member for Corby spoke with great passion, and all those present in the debate will have clocked that—well, let me put it like this: the attitude he showed to the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, and his ability to ingratiate himself with her, shows that he may not be on the Back Benches for long.
	An industrial policy is central to achieving the goal of growth and enterprise, and there is broad consensus on that from the CBI to the TUC, as well as across the House. The reason for that is simple. Any Government in a mature economy has an industrial policy—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and
	my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) argued, a Government cannot choose not to have one. We have an industrial strategy but the question is whether we have it by default or design.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised the Dutch system, from which we have much to learn. In my few weeks in this job I have recognised and warmly welcomed the constructive approach taken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West to chairing the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He argued for a cross-departmental approach, and the growth committee on which I sit is an important part of that. He also argued for a cross-party approach, and not only do I agree with that, but I think hon. Members have demonstrated such an approach today. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s realism and ability to accept failures on the part of all past Governments. As he said, manufacturing halved as a percentage of GDP, and the passionate argument about that and the history around it was also put forward by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).
	Crucially, an industrial strategy looks both at and across sectors, and we must ensure that we allow for the challenge of sectors that are yet to be dreamed of. Let me touch on four cross-cutting themes, as well as on sectors such as the automotive industry, life sciences and aerospace, in which we are pushing rapidly ahead with the publication of individual papers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Briefly, and on a genuinely cross-party consensual basis, will the Minister update the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) about energy-intensive industries such as Tata Steel? Those vital employers and big economic generators have a massive impact on the supply chain, but they consistently say that they do not have a strategy that deals with their energy costs as well as everything else.

Gordon Birtwistle: I congratulate my two colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his maiden speech. I remember doing mine two and half years ago. I hope he is as enthusiastic in two and a half years as I am now. It does not take long for House to kick the strength out of people.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put the debate into perspective when he said that, in the past 60 years, we have gone from being the major supplier to the world to being a minor supplier. In 1958—nearly 60 years ago—I turned up on my first day as an apprentice engineer at a company in Accrington that employed 5,000 people to produce textile machinery that was sold around the world. It is no longer there, and has not been for many years. I have been involved in manufacturing almost throughout the period he described.
	We can get growth going in numerous ways. The one thing the Chancellor can do in two weeks’ time is give 100% capital allowances for investment in capital, buildings and the like for the manufacturing sector. As I understand it, the major companies in this country, and companies from abroad who wish to invest, have £70 billion stashed in banks. One hundred per cent. capital allowances for just two years would boost investment and the money would be spent in the UK.
	Another major problem is the supply chain—it is a problem in the automotive and aerospace industries. It needs to be resolved. To get rid of our balance of payments deficit, we need to increase exports by 15% and reduce imports by 15%. It does not sound like a big task to export 15% more and import 15% less. I have asked companies whether they are able to do so. The vast majority in the aerospace industry say, “Yes, we can. We’ve got order books for 25 years ahead, but we do not have a supply chain to feed our order book, so we are having to import. We would really like to manufacture in the UK so we have our own supply chain.” We need to resolve that, but we also need the staff to work in the supply chain—the young people to work in the supply chains of our top industries, such as the aerospace, automotive and chemical industries, are not coming through. The supply chain gap is a major problem.
	We have a major skills gap. I visited Rolls-Royce in Derby only last week and asked to see its apprenticeships training programme. I was delighted to hear that it takes on 40 extra apprentices every year not for Rolls-Royce, but for the supply chain—companies that supply Rolls-Royce but that cannot afford to take on apprentices. Those small companies want high-class apprentices and to deliver the skills of the future, and Rolls-Royce takes them on at its own expense so that its supply chain is secure.
	Hon. Members mentioned careers advice. I am horrified when I go to schools in my constituency and hear about the careers advice that is given to young people. Basically, it is nothing—no careers advice that is of any use is given. Some young people would be interested in going into manufacturing, but nobody advises them what it is about. It is high time that the Department for Education looked into careers advice in schools. We need young people who really know what manufacturing is about.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).